The biggest reveal was that Borisov was floated in the mid-1990s as a possible informant against his alleged and widely assumed contacts in the world of Bulgarian organized crime. On February 21—just 18 days after the Balkanleaks release—Borisov resigned in the face of widespread corruption allegations and rising energy prices.

No matter the act's public good, publishing the “Buddha dossier” caused trouble for Bivol, the investigative journalism outlet behind Balkanleaks. On February 11, the site stated it had been subject to a “massive smearing campaign in the [Bulgarian] media and a recurring DDoS attack on the site.” As a result, its editors fought back via blog post. “Bivol is now releasing this insurance file. The key will leak automatically if something happens to our staff."

The "Buddha dossier" was not the first time Borisov had been linked to organized crime. Immediately following the collapse of Bulgaria’s communist regime in the mid-1990s, Borisov’s private security firm, Ipon, worked for Todor Zhivkov. Zhivkov was Bulgaria’s communist dictator from 1954 to 1989. Questions concerning Borisov’s alleged ties to organized crime came soon after.

So Atanas Tchobanov, a Balkanleaks and Bivol co-founder, doesn't believe his website was directly responsible for the fall of the Borisov government.

"This is a very uncertain [question]," he told Ars in an Internet chat. "You remember, some people said that WikiLeaks unleashed the Tunisian revolution. I don't believe this is the real cause. But it's a pleasure to see slogans on the protests [such as]: 'Buddha, we're not fools'"

Enlarge/ The sign reads: "Buddha, we're not fools." (As seen at a February 20, 2013 protest in Sofia, Bulgaria.)

And thanks to a WikiLeaks-leaked US State Department cable from 2006 (three years before Borisov became prime minister), we now know the US Embassy in Sofia told Washington, DC about Borisov. He was “implicated in serious criminal activity and maintains close ties to LUKoil [Russia’s second-largest oil company] and the Russian embassy.”

That cable concludes, ominously: “In other words, we should continue to push him in the right direction, but never forget who we're dealing with.”

The few, the proud, the leaks

WikiLeaks remains under a near financial blockade, its founder under effective house arrest after having been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. The group has yet to release anything as substantial as last year’s “Detainee Policies”—Balkanleaks remains one of the few "leaking sites" still going strong. Its recent insurance-key move comes precisely out of the WikiLeaks playbook.

More than two years ago, a flurry of new WikiLeaks clones sprung up around the world inspired by the world’s most famous transparency-driven organization. They had all kinds of names: QuebecLeaks, BaltiLeaks, EnviroLeaks, and more. PirateLeaks (based in the Czech Republic), BrusselsLeaks (Belgium) and RuLeaks (Russia) all did not respond to Ars’ requests for comments.

HonestAppalachia's Jimmy Tobias wrote to Ars to say the group was "active indeed, and working on a variety of projects." To date, HonestAppalachia has yet to publish anything, despite receiving a $5,000 grant from the Sunlight Foundation nearly a year ago.

Most of these clones never got very far and appear to have all but shut down. Balkanleaks seems to be just one of a handful still actively receiving and publishing new documents.

“I think this points to the fact that what WikiLeaks did was fairly unique and probably a few
years ahead of its time,” said Trevor Timm, co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

So how does Balkanleaks thrive where others haven’t?

Tchobanov, the site’s co-founder, boils it down to one word: Tor. It's the open-source online anonymizing tool that’s become the de facto gold standard for hiding one’s tracks online. Balkanleaks provides instructions in Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian, and English, and the submission website is only available on its Tor-enabled server.

“Tor is known and people trust Tor,” he added.

On its face, what Balkanleaks has done should be easily duplicated anywhere. “It’s not hard,” Tchobanov said. “Who says it’s hard?” Balkanleaks set up a website, required leakers to use Tor, explained how and why to use Tor in local languages, and then received and published leaked documents.

This is the beginning of Balkanleaks' Bulgarian-language instructions.

But more established media sites like Radio Sweden, Folha de São Paolo, Al Jazeera, and The Wall Street Journal haven’t had consistent success with their own online submission systems either. And some speculate that all the unsuccessful leaking sites may, in fact, be due to the consequences from WikiLeaks’ own experience.

“It's not as easy as it looks to set up an anonymous site that's safe for its users,” Timm said. “We may have seen more WikiLeaks sites become successful if the crackdown against WikiLeaks wasn't so hard after the State Department cables. When WikiLeaks did what they did, despite not breaking any law, they were cut off from all sorts of finances and had a grand jury investigation opened against them. I think this created a chilling effect for other developers who would want to do the same thing.”

Still—with Tor as a proven, secure, and verifiable technology—it seems clear these sites need more than technological tools. A successful operation needs willing leakers and an available brigade of journalists or activists who know how to digest and process such an influx of information, and that's what Bivol provides. Having a quick-and-dirty specialized site for a particular region, with journalists that the public trusts, is also a huge asset.

Most of the time, the problem with these 'public archive of secret documents' is that they are usually taken out of whatever contextual framework that surrounded it. Not having any context whatsoever with data makes it less valuable but quite potentially dangerous. This is no different than eavesdropping in the middle of a conversation and then formulating an entire thesis on what that conversation was truly about. Considering that the data has to ultimately be interpreted by a human being, this then makes the data less reliable as a form of evidence and quite vulnerable to manipulation.

Most of the time, the problem with these 'public archive of secret documents' is that they are usually taken out of whatever contextual framework that surrounded it. Not having any context whatsoever with data makes it less valuable but quite potentially dangerous. This is no different than eavesdropping in the middle of a conversation and then formulating an entire thesis on what that conversation was truly about. Considering that the data has to ultimately be interpreted by a human being, this then makes the data less reliable as a form of evidence and quite vulnerable to manipulation.

That is a fair point, but when the options are1. Don't see anything and remain ignorant2. See data which may or may not need extra contextthen option 2 is far more preferable especially given the lengths that our government has gone to hide its shady dealings and incompetence.

You guys should read up on the Pentagon Papers and see how the people from the 1960's handled their own wiki leaks.

The reason that the Pentagon Papers were so much better recieved is that they actually told us things that we didn't know.

The leak from the Iraq and Afgan wars, and the diplomatic cables, didn't really tell us anything exciting. They told us a lot of interesting things, but none of them were "things we didn't know" in the grand sense.

Basically, the Pentagon Papers told us that we had invaded several additional countries without telling anyone and directly lying about it, such as Johnson saying "We aren't going to bomb North Vietnam" to help himself win the election while (shock and surprise) planning for bombing North Vietnam.

This certainly didn't help:

Quote:

70% - To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.20% - To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.10% - To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.ALSO - To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.NOT - To 'help a friend

By comparison, these documents did... what exactly?

They didn't really reveal anything nearly as important.

Comparing Manning to the Pentagon Papers is misleading, because the Pentagon Papers were very different on a fundamental level.

pan.sapiens wrote:

Yeah, I really don't want to offend, but you have to realise: Your brother is/was a volunteer soldier participating in a war of aggression. He signed up for this shit. It was his choice to put himself in danger, and if he found himself in danger then he has no one to blame but himself. I'm sure that the people who he is/was shooting at would have appreciated having the kind of options he had before he started blowing the shit out of their country.

So you're saying that he's justified in shooting Manning, because he was a volunteer who signed up for this?

Its also somewhat questionable calling either war a "war of aggression", seeing as the US does not seek territorial gains in either.

...Yeah, I really don't want to offend, but you have to realise: Your brother is/was a volunteer soldier participating in a war of aggression. He signed up for this shit. It was his choice to put himself in danger, and if he found himself in danger then he has no one to blame but himself. I'm sure that the people who he is/was shooting at would have appreciated having the kind of options he had before he started blowing the shit out of their country.

Don't ever disrespect a soldier. Regardless of if they're on the opposing side or not. They're fighting because they believe that risking their lives improves the lives of others.

...Yeah, I really don't want to offend, but you have to realise: Your brother is/was a volunteer soldier participating in a war of aggression. He signed up for this shit. It was his choice to put himself in danger, and if he found himself in danger then he has no one to blame but himself. I'm sure that the people who he is/was shooting at would have appreciated having the kind of options he had before he started blowing the shit out of their country.

Don't ever disrespect a soldier. Regardless of if they're on the opposing side or not. They're fighting because they believe that risking their lives improves the lives of others.

Uh, its perfectly fine to disrespect soldiers. Being a soldier does not insulate you from criticism, nor make you a good person. Do concentration camp guards deserve our respect? Do the scum who shot up My Lai?

For all those people saying "Wikileaks put lives at risk", you are forgetting (or more likely ignoring) that Wikileaks worked closely with the US government prior to release of anything to ensure that lives were not put at risk.

Did the US government respond by saying "Thank you for pointing out these terrible abuses to us. These are not what we stand for, and they are un-American"? No, it made every effort, legal and illegal, to shut down Wikileaks and to persecute anyone who may have anything to do with the organisation.

Is that really something you want to defend? Closed government freely committing crimes against humanity? The US says it's all about freedom - but the last decade has proven otherwise and given us a world that is more dangerous than before simply because the "world police" has proven to be not only inept but also corrupt and dishonest.

The US could be a world leader, but it is squandering any goodwill it may have by failing to practice what it preaches.

Ultimately there are usually two sides of the fence in terms of opinions on leaks: those that believe that the government should be able to keep no secrets and be entirely transparent with everything, and those that think the government has a right to keep secret anything that it deems necessary to keep secret for security purposes.

That is a gross mis-characterization of the motives and actions of the 'leakers', especially the notable recent cases like Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, and Manning.

None, absolutely 0, nada, zilch, of these people believe the government should "have no secrets'. Every single one of them took precautions and preventative measures to make sure they were not giving out information that would harm national security - they were giving out information that revealed crimes being committed by the government. Manning was reckless but even he did not give out anything Top Secret, as Ellsberg noted in his recent article.

So ultimately there are two sides, but those two sides are people who want to cover up and hide criminal activity, and people who want to reveal it. IE, you have people who believe in the rule of law, and people who don't. The "leakers" in almost every case, are on the side of the rule of law.

This goes back to the Enlightenment if not ealier (Aristotle's The Politics talks about how dictatorships depend on spying and secrets). The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect people from crimes that governments tend to commit. I believe President Reagan even said something like this. The late 1700s were the era of monarchs who routinely murdered their political opponents and their own people. The point was that the rights of the individual should be respected in order to bring about a 'just' system that benefits it's own people so that there is not a perpetual state of warfare and abuse. So the system is supposed to have checks and balances - and one of those is the free press, free speech, and the ability for the system to self-critique and self-repair. If you shut off that, you are shutting off one of the main arteries of democracy itself.

Reasoned ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hmm. Actually, I have a very clear idea what it means. I might not be the most articulate, but my reasoning and analytic abilities are extremely good. I make very good money on that.

I have an opinion/view that is against the active forum posters who follow this kind of thread. But, there is a pattern. Don't like the opinion, hit neg. It disappears. Yay, only "my view" stuff is visible. Definition of an echo chamber.

And, why would someone create a new account, just to make a post on this thread. Clearly an alt, which makes one suspicious. Why do you need an alt? Been banned? Or, need to pass a discussion back and forth?

I've been arstechnica for a long time. And normally avoid these threads. And will go back to that, because watching echo chambers is... boring.

The problem with these sites is that they have thus far shown no discretion about the material they release. They seem to think its perfectly acceptable to dump everything they get their hands on out onto the internet with no concern as to redacting and editing the material so that only misdoings are exposed.

Their intent on the surface claims to the exposing crimes and injustices but the reality is that a lot of them are simply getting off on embarrassing and taunting governments and institutions the site owners do not agree with. Many of the data and document dumps result in nothing incriminating being shown to the public. Most of what we've seen from them are the personal and private details or conversations of individuals that were meant to be candid for valid reasons. Nothing highlights this more than the reams of diplomatic cables which proved to be criminally and morally benign.

The act of whistle blowing implies some greater purpose other than providing an ego boost for the publishing entity or givings a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind a public platform. Yet that is precisely what the revelations of these sites have become.

I am all for exposing the illicit CRIMINAL acts of businesses and governments who are entrusted with securing the public good but most of what I have learned from Wikileaks and their ilk is that these sites are run by a group of undisciplined egomaniacs who crave attention, notoriety, and retribution against any authority figures.

...Yeah, I really don't want to offend, but you have to realise: Your brother is/was a volunteer soldier participating in a war of aggression. He signed up for this shit. It was his choice to put himself in danger, and if he found himself in danger then he has no one to blame but himself. I'm sure that the people who he is/was shooting at would have appreciated having the kind of options he had before he started blowing the shit out of their country.

Don't ever disrespect a soldier. Regardless of if they're on the opposing side or not. They're fighting because they believe that risking their lives improves the lives of others.

Uh, its perfectly fine to disrespect soldiers. Being a soldier does not insulate you from criticism, nor make you a good person. Do concentration camp guards deserve our respect? Do the scum who shot up My Lai?

As a society we draw a delineation between a soldier and a murderer that you are perfectly capable of seeing and understanding.

WikiLeaks with the Manning documents essentially proved to a large number of people, myself included, that these leak sites were outright dangerous. There is a big difference between outing a business or government doing something they shouldn't be and the public disclosure of diplomatic cables and military secrets. The damage done by the Manning documents was huge.

Of course, the ardent defenders will jump all over this, making all kinds of "no it wasn't" claims. However, a very large number of people will agree with me, and it is that mass of opinion that matters.

Let the flames begin.

Looking at the comments alone does seem like there are a lot of people who agree with you - we all tend to surround ourselves with people who think like us and as such we make an opinion that majority think like us - which is not true.

ARS is a very global site with readers from different nations and that majority would think these cables do show the dirty laundry of the secret bully on their land.

But i am sure that does not matter to you, for you "America Right or Wrong" is the catch phrase.

Edit1: Would you hesitate to penalize the foot solders along with the kingpins of any group that threatens your nation's land? Remember "One man's Freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".

As a society we draw a delineation between a soldier and a murderer that you are perfectly capable of seeing and understanding.

Soldiers deserve no more respect than members of any other profession, and really a great deal less respect than some.

Truth be told a lot of people idolize them to an unhealthy extent, while others call them babykillers. The truth is that they have a higher rate of psychological trauma than the population at large and that some bad people are attracted to the military (and the police) with the promise of being powerful and possibly being able to hurt or kill other human beings, but a lot of people join the military because either their parents expect them to or because they think that it is a good economic choice (and for a lot of people, particularly poorer folk, it -is-). The officers that I've met were a bit different than the population at large, but they weren't even any more psychotic or bloodthirsty, though they were rather more competitive than most folk.

Looking down on soldiers or looking up to soldiers because of their profession is wrong. There's nothing special about being a soldier - its a job, and it isn't even mostly about killing people (though it is for some people). It isn't even the highest risk job you can take. The ex-soldiers I've met have run the gamut from "successful businessman" and "great engineer" to "vagrant who buys beers for teenagers" and "jerk who thinks he's entitled to a job because he was in Iraq". Which is about the breadth of people in general.

If I don't know you, and I don't know of you, you get no more or less respect than I give every person I meet, and it would be wrong of me to do otherwise.

Manning's case is to demonstrate state's willingness to shut down anyone who dares to intervene. Anyone who believes in what oppressive empire tells them is a fool. Voluntary slave if you will. Instead of working for one master they now work for institution that uses patriotism to justify their actions. What surprises me is that in today's age of information people keep fighting for their masters instead of rebelling against them. I guess masters figured out that instead of chains they can use money, job security, terrorism accusations etc. to keep their peasants loyal. Excuse me while I puke.

Manning's case is to demonstrate state's willingness to shut down anyone who dares to intervene. Anyone who believes in what oppressive empire tells them is a fool. Voluntary slave if you will. Instead of working for one master they now work for institution that uses patriotism to justify their actions. What surprises me is that in today's age of information people keep fighting for their masters instead of rebelling against them. I guess masters figured out that instead of chains they can use money, job security, terrorism accusations etc. to keep their peasants loyal. Excuse me while I puke.

You should stop listening to what your teeth are saying.

The reason he's in jail is because he disclosed classified information without authorization. This is, in fact, illegal - and some of that information was, in fact, properly classified (i.e. was of national security interest).

I don't really think he deserves to be in jail forever and ever, and he certainly doesn't deserve the treatment he has been given (the suicide watch thing, for instance, nor the extremely long period of detention) but on the other hand he did break the law and does deserve to be punished for doing so.

Disclosing classified information improperly can get you in VERY deep trouble, especially if you don't have political connections or blackmail material to protect you. The military in particular is VERY stern with people about improperly disclosing classified information.

Reasoned ... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hmm. Actually, I have a very clear idea what it means. I might not be the most articulate, but my reasoning and analytic abilities are extremely good. I make very good money on that.

I have an opinion/view that is against the active forum posters who follow this kind of thread. But, there is a pattern. Don't like the opinion, hit neg. It disappears. Yay, only "my view" stuff is visible. Definition of an echo chamber.

And, why would someone create a new account, just to make a post on this thread. Clearly an alt, which makes one suspicious. Why do you need an alt? Been banned? Or, need to pass a discussion back and forth?

I've been arstechnica for a long time. And normally avoid these threads. And will go back to that, because watching echo chambers is... boring.

You know, if you focused more on the content of your argument and the reasons people disagree instead of this fixation with various conspiracy theories about people out to get you, then you might get more out of these threads.

Manning's case is to demonstrate state's willingness to shut down anyone who dares to intervene. Anyone who believes in what oppressive empire tells them is a fool. Voluntary slave if you will. Instead of working for one master they now work for institution that uses patriotism to justify their actions. What surprises me is that in today's age of information people keep fighting for their masters instead of rebelling against them. I guess masters figured out that instead of chains they can use money, job security, terrorism accusations etc. to keep their peasants loyal. Excuse me while I puke.

You should stop listening to what your teeth are saying.

The reason he's in jail is because he disclosed classified information without authorization. This is, in fact, illegal - and some of that information was, in fact, properly classified (i.e. was of national security interest).

I don't really think he deserves to be in jail forever and ever, and he certainly doesn't deserve the treatment he has been given (the suicide watch thing, for instance, nor the extremely long period of detention) but on the other hand he did break the law and does deserve to be punished for doing so.

Disclosing classified information improperly can get you in VERY deep trouble, especially if you don't have political connections or blackmail material to protect you. The military in particular is VERY stern with people about improperly disclosing classified information.

You misunderstood my point. I agree with you, he did brake the law and he does deserve to be put on trial. However the bigger question is if what he did was revolutionary act for good of man kind or simply a treason. Brave men throughout the history almost always broke the law in order to expose tyranny and human abuses. For example it was illegal to hide and help Jews during WW2. German army would shoot you on spot for treason. What's more important; to follow the law or to stand up for what's right? Manning is a hero in my book for standing against evil empire. Jail him or execute him but don't portray him as a traitor.

That is a gross mis-characterization of the motives and actions of the 'leakers', especially the notable recent cases like Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Jeffrey Sterling, and Manning.

None, absolutely 0, nada, zilch, of these people believe the government should "have no secrets'. Every single one of them took precautions and preventative measures to make sure they were not giving out information that would harm national security - they were giving out information that revealed crimes being committed by the government. Manning was reckless but even he did not give out anything Top Secret, as Ellsberg noted in his recent article.

So ultimately there are two sides, but those two sides are people who want to cover up and hide criminal activity, and people who want to reveal it. IE, you have people who believe in the rule of law, and people who don't. The "leakers" in almost every case, are on the side of the rule of law.

This goes back to the Enlightenment if not ealier (Aristotle's The Politics talks about how dictatorships depend on spying and secrets). The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect people from crimes that governments tend to commit. I believe President Reagan even said something like this. The late 1700s were the era of monarchs who routinely murdered their political opponents and their own people. The point was that the rights of the individual should be respected in order to bring about a 'just' system that benefits it's own people so that there is not a perpetual state of warfare and abuse. So the system is supposed to have checks and balances - and one of those is the free press, free speech, and the ability for the system to self-critique and self-repair. If you shut off that, you are shutting off one of the main arteries of democracy itself.

The only reason Manning didn't reveal anything that was Top Secret was becase he never had access to TS information. Given his reckless release of those 250,000 cables, I have no doubt that if he had access to anything TS, that would've found its way to WikiLeaks along with everything else.

I must call into question your belief that Manning took steps to ensure that only 'criminal' information was released, and not anything that was detrimental to US national security. This is an individual who is no more knowledgable of the nuances of modern-day diplomacy than anybody else here, and that would make him unable to properly judge what is 'illegal', what is detrimental to US national security, what is detrimental to US foreign policy, or what could have a detrimental effect on allies and other nations that we are fostering diplomatic relations with. Manning might have thought he was uncovering something that was rather dastardly, but in reality, his actions have done more harm than good.

On a side note, it's quite telling that with all of these assertions that these leaks revealed criminal actions, no US official has been subjected to a criminal investigation or an indictment based on information revealed in these cables. Certainly nobody here has been able to give me a concrete example of criminal wrongdoing by the US that was exposed in these cables.

Oh, the days when the NYTimes had some credibility and the balls to expose the government's corruption. These days it'd probably try to blow your cover if you tried to leak something like that to it. Remember it sitting on the information about warrantless wiretapping for years at the NSA's request before publishing it?

You mean the same NYT which actually did the work on analysing and publishing the Wikileaks material?

He means the New York Times which sought US government approval before publishing anything based on the State Department cables which Bradley Manning leaked to WikiLeaks.

Quote:

BILL KELLER: They [The Obama Administration] -- we talked to them. Particularly when we got to the quarter-of-a-million State Department cables, we developed a kind of process where a few days in advance of the stories we were going to run, we would send them the cables that we intended to cite.

They told us what they wished we would not use. We agreed with some and not with others.

former New York Times editor Bill Keller to Jeffrey Brown. "For New York Times, a Complex Relationship With WikiLeaks, Government". PBS Newshour 2011-01-28.

Certainly nobody here has been able to give me a concrete example of criminal wrongdoing by the US that was exposed in these cables.

Well, let's start with just the ones that deal with Spain. As Scott Horton wrote in Harper's December 2010:

Quote:

In Spain, the WikiLeaks disclosures have dominated the news for three days now. ... These cables reveal a large-scale, closely coordinated effort by the State Department to obstruct these criminal investigations.

The three investigations that the US government were trying to quash were: An investigation into the killing of Spanish cameraman José Cuoso in Baghdad's Palestine Hotel by a US tank that may have been an intentional attack on the international press; an investigation into the torture of Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo Bay; and the use of Spanish airfields for extraordinary rendition flights including the one that took the kidnapped German citizen Khaled El-Masri to Iraq and then Afghanistan in 2003.

The US ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994 which made torture an international crime of universal jurisdiction. But also Article 3, Section 1 of the Convention reads:

Quote:

No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

So says international law. But more – once signed by the President and ratified by Congress such treaties become, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land”.

It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.

So, torture and extraordinary rendition, and conspiracy to obstruct or halt an investigation into same. Illegal enough for you yet?

The Jose Cuoso thing is just insane bullshit. There is no "may have been an intentional attack on the international press" to it save by crazy retards and propagandists. There was mortar fire coming down on the tank. They saw a guy on a building pointing optics at the tank (probably a journalist taking pictures). They didn't know what the building was, and they were looking for the spotter who was helping direct the mortar fire. They shot the guy that they thought was the spotter. Getting shot by an Abrams tank is not good for your health.

The moral of the story is "Taking pictures in a war zone is dangerous", which is something that is pretty obvious. The idea that there was wrongdoing on the part of the tank's crew is, frankly, retarded revisionist bullshit. The journalists died because one of them was mistaken for an enemy spotter. Does it suck? Yes. Is it a crime? No. The US blocking that is, quite frankly, to be expected.

Diplomats urge people not to prosecute people all the time, and its nothing particularly nefarious. We encourage the Iranians not to prosecute people for things we consider non-crimes, and we urge various places to release journalists, intellectuals, opposition leaders, ect. fairly often. Is it surprising in any way that we cover for actual crimes as well? No. And we already knew about the whole extraordinary rendition thing, as well as torture at Guantanamo Bay, and the government's reluctance to talk about either of those (illegal) activities. The idea that we didn't know about that stuff, and coverups related to them before the cables, is silly.

The Jose Cuoso thing is just insane bullshit. There is no "may have been an intentional attack on the international press" to it save by crazy retards and propagandists.

crazy retards, propagandists and journalists who were there:

Quote:

DAVID CHATER: They knew exactly that there were journalists here and that there were cameras pointing at the tank battle going on from these balconies. It’s extraordinary that they should come up with this excuse, saying that we have all got to hang white sheets out of the window to identify ourselves because there were sniper rounds coming out of the building. I never heard a single shot coming from any of the area around me, certainly not from the hotel.

CARLOS HERNANDEZ: [translated]All of us there knew there had been no hostile fire at all against the American tanks, neither from the hotel, nor from the hotel’s surroundings.

JESUS QUINONERO: [translated] I sat for about five hours, positioned on the hotel terrace. I heard no shooting from our side. Not from our side. None at all.

from transcript of filmHotel Palestine: Killing the Witness from the Spanish TV network that José Cuosco worked for.

Former US Army sergeant Adrienne Kinne, who worked in military intelligence in Iraq has since testified that the Palestine Hotel was on a list of targets she saw before it was attacked.

Quote:

ADRIENNE KINNE: One of the instances was the fact that we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target, I went to my officer in charge, and I told him that there are journalists staying at this hotel who think they’re safe, and yet we have this hotel listed as a potential target, and somehow the dots are not being connected here, and shouldn’t we make an effort to make sure that the right people know the situation?

And unfortunately, my officer in charge, similarly to any time I raised concerns about things that we were collecting or intelligence that we were reporting, basically told me that it was not my job to analyze. It was my job to collect and pass on information and that someone somewhere higher up the chain knew what they were doing.

Yes, the extraordinary rendition I knew about before the diplomatic cable leak. The attempts to strong-arm the Spanish government into not prosecuting US government crimes, that was new. Unsurprising, but also now undeniable. And that is valuable because, as your sanitized version of the attack on the Palestine Hotel shows, the lies must be countered with evidence.

So, torture and extraordinary rendition, and conspiracy to obstruct or halt an investigation into same. Illegal enough for you yet?

It's obviously not, because to date there have been no prosecutions of Janet Napalitano, Ambassador Aguirre, Mel Martinez or Judd Gregg over this. Even more damning is there have been no prosecutions of Prosecutor General Candido Conde-Pumpido, or Judge Javier Zaragoza over the information revealed in these leaks....they haven't even resigned over this. Say what you want about the absence of prosecutions for US government officials, but the fact that there have been no legal repurcussions against the top officials in Spain's government is even more of an indication that while the US government's behaivor may be regarded as improper, it never crossed into the realm of illegal.

Your disgust with how the U.S. government conducts is foreign policy doesn't necessarily make their conduct illegal.

Seriously, did you even think before you pumped that out? Did you look at anything related? Or did you just listen to propaganda?

Answer: You just listened to propaganda.

Maybe you shouldn't do that, and actually look for facts. But no, you are incapable of doing that because then you might be wrong.

The reason the tank didn't know what the building was was because it was outside of its sector. That is to say, it was going into an area, and it was getting bombarded, and it saw what looked to be spotters for mortars in a tall building that was a perfect vantage point for them. It didn't know what the building was and took a shot at what appeared to be a spotter for mortar fire.

Now, does a spotter shoot at you? No. A spotter's purpose is to help the mortars better aim themselves and adjust their angle of fire so that they hit the tanks. So when you have retarded journalists crying about "There wasn't any fire coming from the hotel", that's retarded journalists and retarded propaganda. Its like someone who gets shot saying "I wasn't holding a gun", when they were instead holding a knife - they weren't shooting at the hotel because they thought they were getting shot at from the hotel, they shot at the hotel because they thought they saw the spotter for the mortar fire there. Can you imagine why someone with a big set of optics could easily be mistaken for a spotter? If you can't, then maybe passing judgement isn't for you.

And, according to the army reports of the people who were, you know, actually being shot at, there was indeed some level of fire coming from multiple directions, or at least that was their perception on the ground.

I'm sorry, but the journalists died because they thought it was totally awesome to go into a warzone. That's their problem. If you aren't readily identifiable by the Americans as press, and you look like you might be hostile, yeah, you might get shot. Too bad for you.

And yes, the Palestine Hotel was a potential target. Its a big building which is a good vantage point for snipers and spotters. "Oh we'll be safe here!" You aren't EVER safe, ANYWHERE, when you're in a war zone. If you're in a city which is being invaded, you are in danger.

And, according to the army reports of the people who were, you know, actually being shot at, there was indeed some level of fire coming from multiple directions, or at least that was their perception on the ground.

Seriously, did you even think before you pumped that out? Did you look at anything related? Or did you just listen to propaganda?

Answer: You just listened to propaganda.

Who the shit do you think you are kidding, exactly?

Quote:

ow, does a spotter shoot at you? No. A spotter's purpose is to help the mortars better aim themselves and adjust their angle of fire so that they hit the tanks. So when you have retarded journalists crying about "There wasn't any fire coming from the hotel", that's retarded journalists and retarded propaganda. Its like someone who gets shot saying "I wasn't holding a gun", when they were instead holding a knife - they weren't shooting at the hotel because they thought they were getting shot at from the hotel, they shot at the hotel because they thought they saw the spotter for the mortar fire there. Can you imagine why someone with a big set of optics could easily be mistaken for a spotter? If you can't, then maybe passing judgement isn't for you.

Yes, clearly numerous journalists were hiding a number of spotters for the "enemy" and are the one selling bullshit rather than the government that fired at a building full of journalists.